Classical Classical Mechanics by Douglas Gregory

[shinobi20]

I have read some parts of the book but noticed some errors that are to much for me to be uncomfortable for the rest of the book. Anyone encountered such problems with the book? Mainly, encountering too many errors? Even the errata in the publisher's site didn't gave sufficient corrections to the errors I saw. Do anyone here know if there exist some compilation of errors besides the errata?

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0521534097/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[Hubert John]

I have read some parts of the book but noticed some errors that are to much for me to be uncomfortable for the rest of the book. Anyone encountered such problems with the book? Mainly, encountering too many errors? Even the errata in the publisher's site didn't gave sufficient corrections to the errors I saw. Do anyone here know if there exist some compilation of errors besides the errata?

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0521534097/?tag=pfamazon01-20

What sort of errors are you talking about? This book seemed to be a pretty clear book with very clear cut definitions, principles and proofs. Perhaps it is written by a mathematician and as such doesn't have all the physical insights that can be hoped for. But overall it is a good book.
Can you give a specific example of an egregious error that you have found out?

 

[Office_Shredder]

This thread was posted in 2015, so if they still remember the details then it must have been pretty bad...

 

[dextercioby]

This thread was posted in 2015, so if they still remember the details then it must have been pretty bad...

But we still do not know exactly where this book is presumably wrong (chapter/page)...
For example, here https://www.cambridge.org/gb/academ...solid-mechanics/classical-mechanics?format=PB is the official errata from the publisher.
Since a second edition was no longer published by CUP, in order to have the opportunity to integrate this errata, it means the book was not a success with the classical mechanics' instructors and students (at least in the UK).

 

[Frabjous]

it means the book was not a success with the classical mechanics' instructors and students (at least in the UK).

Commercial success is not necessarily a good measure on the quality of a text.

 

[dextercioby]

Commercial success is not necessarily a good measure on the quality of a text.

While this is correct, one must bear in mind that the decision to publish a second edition of a book (so that the errata is implemented) is made primarily on profitability analysis:

a) the textbook was so well sold, that the publisher asks the author to „polish” the initial text, so that it can be sold again.
b) the textbook was so poorly written and had such miserable sales and feedback from professors, that the publisher urges the author to almost rewrite all again (the famous example of Schwichtenberg's "Physics from Symmetry", Springer Verlag).

 

[dyn]

But we still do not know exactly where this book is presumably wrong (chapter/page)...
For example, here https://www.cambridge.org/gb/academ...solid-mechanics/classical-mechanics?format=PB is the official errata from the publisher.
Since a second edition was no longer published by CUP, in order to have the opportunity to integrate this errata, it means the book was not a success with the classical mechanics' instructors and students (at least in the UK).

Those errors have been corrected by the 16th printing in 2018. That textbook is also one of the most recommended textbooks by Universities in my country